Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A longitudinal analysis of trajectory changes in the software industry: the case of the content management application segment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

The software industry is changing as a result of the rising influence both of packaged and of Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS), but the change trajectory of the industry is still not well understood. This paper aims to contribute to clarifying software industry evolution through a longitudinal study, using Industry Change Trajectory Theory to explain and predict the evolution of the Content Management Systems (CMS) segment and the extent to which its results can be generalized to the overall software industry. Our data analysis shows that CMS players are experiencing a modification of their segments’ change trajectory. While McGahan in 2004 recognized that the software industry was in a creative change trajectory, it has subsequently faced strong competition on its core assets, (i.e. applications) and the empirical results of our longitudinal study from 2002 to 2007 show the CMS segment is now in a radical change trajectory, due to the rapid obsolescence of its core activities. Changes affecting the segment include the continuous development of CMS applications, the faster extension of functions for FLOSS CMS than for packaged CMS, the diffusion of the practice of providing services as well as delivering of software solutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adam A and Light B (2004) Selling packaged software: an ethical analysis. In European Conference on Information Systems. Turku, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • AIIM (2002) Entreprise applications – adoption of e-business and document technologies: 2000–2001. Commissioned by AIIM (Association for Information and Image Management – The Entreprise Content Management Association) and conducted by Gartner.

  • Andersson R and Nilsson AG (1996) The standard application package market – an industry in transition? In Advancing Your Business: People and Information Systems in Concert (LUNDEBERG M and SUNDGREN B, Eds), pp 1–24, EFI, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basili V and Boehm B (2001) Cots-based systems top 10 list. IEEE Computer 34 (5), 91–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell T, Shegda KM, Drakos N, Knox RE and Logan D (2007) Cool vendors in content management, 2007. Research, Gartner.

  • Boonstra A (2003) Structure and analysis of is decision-making processes. European Journal of Information Systems 12 (3), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley JH, Paul R and Seeman E (2006) Analyzing the structure of expert knowledge. Information & management 43 (1), 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks JD and Princi M (2001) Enterprise content management: better information to more people more quickly. Institute for Strategic Change, Accenture: 3.

  • Brynjolfsson E and Kemerer CF (1996) Network externalities in microcomputer software: an econometric analysis of the spreadsheet market. Management Science 42 (12), 1627–1647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr NG (2003) It doesn’t matter. Harvard Business Review 81 (5), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherns A (1993) Principles of socio-technical design. In The Social Engagement of Social Science (TRIST E and MURRAY H, Eds), University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • CMSWorks Inc (2004) Cms Watch. CMSWorks Inc. Olney, MD, USA.

  • Comtex (2002) Frost & Sullivan names IBM the leader in enterprise content management. Internet Wire.

  • Cusumano M, Kahl S and Suarez FF (2006) Product, process, and service: a new industry lifecycle model. Working Paper, MIT Sloan School of Management.

  • Dahlander L and Magnusson M (2008) How do firms make use of open source communities? Long Range Planning 41 (6), 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirhan D, Jacob VS and Raghunathan S (2007) Strategic it investments: the impact of switching cost and declining it cost. Management Science 53 (2), 208–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver M, Alvarez G, Basso M, Bitterer A, Dawson P, Maio AD, Drakos N, Duggan J, Feinberg D, Fiering L and Friedman T (2008) Hype cycle for open-source software. Stamford, CT, USA, Gartner: 47.

  • Economides N and Katsamakas E (2006) Two-sided competition of proprietary vs. open source technology platforms and the implications for the software industry. Management Science 52 (7), 1057–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B (2006) The transformation of open source software. MIS Quarterly 30 (3), 587–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankl P and Rubik F (2000) Life Cycle Assessment in Industry and Business: Adoption Patterns, Applications and Implications. Springer, Berlin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier GL and Howell RD (1983) Business definition and performance. Journal of Marketing 47 (1), 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Free Software Foundation (2007) The Free Software Definition. Free Software Foundation, Boston, MA, USA.

  • Gartner G (2001) Enterprise Applications – Adoption of e-Business and Document Technologies: 2002–2001 Worldwide. AIIM International, Silver Spring, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutsche J (2005) Competition between open source and proprietary software, and the scope for public policy. In International Conference on Open Source Systems. Genova, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan KR (1980) Strategies for Declining Industries. L. Books, Lexington, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinterhuber HH and Kircheberg M (1986) The analysis of strategic groups of firms. European Management Journal 4 (2), 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard P (2001) Selecting a content management provider. In Content Management (ELM, Ed), Ericleach, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izushi H and Aoyama Y (2006) Industry evolution and cross-sectoral skill transfers: a comparative analysis of the video game industry in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning 38 (10), 1843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaydip MR, Kai SK, Lai CL and Chun SY (2003) An identification and classification of enterprise portal functions and features. Industrial Management + Data Systems 103 (8/9), 693–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kekre S, Krishnan MS and Srinivasan K (1995) Drivers of customer satisfaction for software products: implications for design and service support. Management Science 41 (9), 1456–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konana P and Ray G (2007) Physical product reengineering. Communications of the ACM 50 (10), 72–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda D and Brooks L (2000) Identifying and classifying processes (traditional and soft factors) that support cots component selection: a case study. European Journal of Information Systems 9 (4), 226–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham L (2007a) Key issues for web content management, 2007. Research, Gartner.

  • Latham L (2007b) Marketscope for web content management, 2007. Research, Gartner.

  • Leebaert D (Ed) (1995) News from the frontiers. In The Future of Software MIT-Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy M and Powell P (2000) Information systems strategy for small and medium sized enterprises: an organisational perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9 (1), 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz SJ and Margolis SE (1999) Winners, Losers and Microsoft Competition and Antitrust in High Technology. The Independent Institute, Oakland, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matusow J (2005) Shared source: the microsoft perspective. In Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software (FELLER J, FITZGERALD B, HISSAM S and LAKHANI K, Eds), pp 329–346, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGahan A (2004a) How Industries Evolve: Principles for Achieving and Sustaining Superior Performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGahan AM (2004b) How industries change. Harvard Business Review 82 (10), 86–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGahan AM, Argyres N and Baum JAC (2004) Context, technology and strategy: forging new perspectives on the industry life cycle. In Business Strategy Over the Industry Life Cycle (BAUM JAC, Ed), Elsevier, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeever S (2003) Understanding web content management systems: evolution, lifecycle and market. Industrial Management & Data Systems 103 (8/9), 686–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melville N, Gurbaxani V and Kraemer K (2007) The productivity impact of information technology across competitive regimes: the role of industry concentration and dynamism. Decision Support Systems 43 (1), 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakano R (2002) Web Content Management. Addison-Wessley, Boston, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pang A (2008) Worldwide packaged applications 2008–2012 forecast and 2007 vendor shares: 2008 reference guide. Market Analysis, IDC.

  • Paulson J, Succi G and Eberlein A (2004) An empirical study of open source and closed source software products. IEEE Transactions in Software Engineering 3 (4), 246–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelz-Sharpe A, Ashenden A and Harris-Jones C (2002) Ovum evaluates: content management. Ovum: London, UK.

  • Pickett JP (2000) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigni F, Ravarini A, Tagliavini M and Vitari C (2002) Banks’ strategies and the internet: an interpretation of the banking industry based on the Italian retail market. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications 4 (3), 6–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock N and Williams R (2008) The sociology of a market analysis tool: how industry analysts sort vendors and organize markets. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

  • Porter ME (1980) Competitive Strategy. Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price Waterhouse (1998) 1998 software business practice survey. Boston, USA.

  • Quintas P (1994) The commodification of software. Information Technology & People 7 (4), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raghunathan S (2000) Software editions: an application of segmentation theory to the packaged software market. Journal of Management Information Systems 17 (1), 87–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai A and Sambamurthy V (2006) Editorial notes – the growth of interest in services management: opportunities for information systems scholars. Information Systems Research 17 (4), 327–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravarini A (2006) Content management: how to be content with your solution. Cutter Benchmark Review 6 (4), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • ReportSURE (2005) Global software and it survey. Industry Survey, ReportSURE.

  • Reynolds J and Kaur A (2000) Content management. Microsoft, p 30.

  • Robertson J (2002) How to evaluate a content management system. KM Column 6, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy A (2003) Microsoft vs. Linux: gaining traction. Chartered Financial Analyst 9 (5), 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer S (2000) Packaged software: implications of the differences from custom approaches to software development. European Journal of Information Systems 9 (1), 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short JC, Ketchen DJJ, Palmer TB and Hult GTM (2007) Firm, strategic group, and industry influences on performance. Strategic Management Journal 28 (2), 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • skyBuilders Inc. (2004) Cms Review Feature List. skyBuilders Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.

  • skyBuilders Inc. (2007) Cms Review Feature List. skyBuilders Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.

  • Succi G, Paulson J and Eberlein A (2001) Preliminary results from an experimental study on the growth of open source and commercial software products. In ICSE Workshop on Economics-Driven Software Engineering Research. Toronto, ON, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usoro A (2001) Can information technology help managers plan globally? Journal of Global Information Management 9 (1), 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voas J (1998) Cots software: the economical choice? IEEE Software 15 (2), 16–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voas J (2001) Faster, better, cheaper. IEEE Software 96–97.

  • Wallnau K (1999) On software components and commercial (‘cots’) software. In International Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering. Los Angeles, CA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • West J (2003) How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy 32, 1259–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkoff N (2001) What's Next for Content Management?. Forrester Research Inc., Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wintergreen Research (2005) Content Management Market Opportunities, Strategies, and Forecasts, 2005 to 2011. Wintergreen Research, Lexington, MA, USA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grenoble Ecole de Management, Grenoble, France

    Claudio Vitari

  2. Università Carlo Cattaneo, Castellanza, Italy

    Aurelio Ravarini

Authors
  1. Claudio Vitari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aurelio Ravarini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Vitari.

Appendix

Appendix

Table A1, A2 and A3

Table a1 An extract of the structured list of functions and an example of how it was used for the data collection in the Phase 1
Full size table
Table a2 The set of applications
Full size table
Table a3 The version, cost category, function and service (only in Phase 3) values across time
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vitari, C., Ravarini, A. A longitudinal analysis of trajectory changes in the software industry: the case of the content management application segment. Eur J Inf Syst 18, 249–263 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.13

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.13

Keywords

Search

Navigation